Author Topic: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed  (Read 5614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 906
  • Respect: +389
More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« on: February 11, 2007, 09:33:47 PM »
0
Tried something that I've been turning over in my mind recently.  Results below. 

Left Tree - Three old WS metal trunk armatures bonded together with CA.  Branches shaped and then sedum flowers sans flower part CA'd with Zap Kicker.  The Sedum is the same thing Lee used for his trees but I clipped off the flowers to get the branch structure to show.

Center Tree - Box Wood trunk with hydrangia flower stems CA/ZK'd in position.  Not particularly successful as a bare tree but will find a use somewhere with foliage.

Right Tree - WS plastic trunk (2 actually - cut branches from a 2nd one to fill out the shape).  Super tree branches were cut off their trunk and CA/ZK'd into place.  I gave the whole thing a quick gray primer spray to blend it together.

This process is not possible without Zap Kicker IMO.  This process also redefines the word tedious, although I got faster as I moved from the left tree to the right.



Here's a close up of the metal trunk / sedum branch tree.


The circled tree is what I was going after with the sedum tree.  Mine would be 15 yrs or so younger, so not as tall or spread out.


They'll all eventually have foliage added, 'cause I'm a weenie, but I wanted to place an acorn in Ed's easy chair (sofa?).  So, Mr. "Leaves are for Weenies", the ball's in your court.  I'm open to ideas for making them better.

Steve

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10846
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +906
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2007, 09:36:43 PM »
0
The one on the right is awesome, just awesome.  :'(

central.vermont

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2555
  • Gender: Male
  • Jon
  • Respect: +114
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2007, 09:56:44 PM »
0
I really like the one he circled........it looks really good!!!!  ::) ;D ;D
Jon



3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2007, 10:13:45 PM »
0
The one on the right is awesome, just awesome.  :'(

I agree. Great work. Ed, are you up to the challenge?

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 19346
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +3253
    • Conrail 1285
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2007, 10:46:52 PM »
0
I actually like the one on the left better, but I think that's because of my deep seated hatred for the supertree "dots"...

I really do like the way the one on the left looks.

How long do you think IT took?

Part of my love for the supertrees is how fast I can knock a bunch of them out.

But damn, this is awesome stuff!

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14117
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +2332
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2007, 01:17:08 AM »
0
Nicely done!  Instead of the metal armatures, just bond together two or three sedum stems, setting the crowns at different levels.
I've discovered another trick...  If you pick the sedum in the late fall, the seed pods are more intact, which is good for leafy trees.  If you pick it late in the winter, the seed pods have either fallen off, or have loosened to the point that they're easy to shake off, creating the nekkid tree look you're after.

Lee
Rockin' It Old School

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14669
  • Respect: +3338
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2007, 07:20:13 AM »
0
Maybe build trees to sell on E-bay?

http://www.petitepinesnorthern.com/

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10846
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +906
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2007, 07:39:25 AM »
0

John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 11251
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +814
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2007, 08:01:37 AM »
0
That picture looks like it was taken in Lima Oh

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 906
  • Respect: +389
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2007, 09:12:24 AM »
0
I actually like the one on the left better, but I think that's because of my deep seated hatred for the supertree "dots"...

I really do like the way the one on the left looks.

How long do you think IT took?

Part of my love for the supertrees is how fast I can knock a bunch of them out.

But damn, this is awesome stuff!

The right side tree has the airy see through look I'm after, but I agree with Ed, the super tree seed pods spoil the bare tree look.  Sprinkle light green fine turf on the pods and you'd get a very convincing early spring tree, just as the leaf buds are breaking out.  My issue with super trees is, straight out of the box, they don't look much like any particular tree.  I'm now satisfied I can use them as material for other trees, but at the cost of time.  If I don't screw up the foliage addition, it should make a killer tree.

Fewer major limbs on the metal/sedum tree would make it look better I think.  That was the first one I did.  I think I can do better.  It  took 90 min. but I was figuring things out as I went along.  The plastic/super tree version to 45 min. but I was still learning how to handle the super tree branches as I went.  If you're filling hills and valleys as Lee is, this is not the technique to use, usless you have A LOT of time on your hands and are amused easily.

You're close John - Not Lima but Spencer, OH.  The entire band west of Akron to the state line pretty much looks the same.  This is effectively the same area Bill Darnaby has set his Maumee Route in.  Look at the AC&Y or Erie map through here and you can pick out the towns he's modeled.

Steve

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2007, 10:19:57 AM »
0
Y'know, perhaps it's too bad Bob Hundman no longer publishes N-Scale magazine. He'd go absolutely ape over an article on making that tree on the right.

You might contact Pam Clapp, the present publisher and see if she's interested in carrying on Bob's tree tradition.  ;D  info@nscalemagazine.com

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 906
  • Respect: +389
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2007, 05:50:53 PM »
0
Y'know, perhaps it's too bad Bob Hundman no longer publishes N-Scale magazine. He'd go absolutely ape over an article on making that tree on the right.

You might contact Pam Clapp, the present publisher and see if she's interested in carrying on Bob's tree tradition.  ;D  info@nscalemagazine.com

Given how much grief Bob took/still takes over those tree articles I don't think that's a tradition I wish to carry on.  I do have a lot of his tree articles saved though and use them for reference, especially the ones with tree skeleton drawings.  A good N American tree field guide might be good purchase at this point though.

3rdrail

  • Guest
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2007, 07:36:23 PM »
0
Steve, don't get me wrong about Bob Hundman, I've attended several of his clinics, including at least one on making trees at Prototype Rails meets, and bought a copy of his reprint of the book on North American trees at one. Excellent reference.

I do think he makes his trees too big though - been in the Pacific Northwest too long... ::)

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 19346
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +3253
    • Conrail 1285
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2007, 10:00:46 PM »
0
Too big?

I don't know 60'-100' looks about right to me.

The traditional "model tree" now looks comically small to me.

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 906
  • Respect: +389
Re: More Bare Trees . . . . Ed
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2007, 10:15:16 PM »
0
Too big?

I don't know 60'-100' looks about right to me.

The traditional "model tree" now looks comically small to me.

The tree on the right that everybody liked is 60' high.  I'd say the tree I circled in the photo is 80' - 100'.  Bob built them the right height IMO.  Sometimes correct height trees overwhelm small layouts, especially if the right of way is not wide enough to support them.  Or the structures have been compressed too much.